Share the
Wealth Corporate America—Share it with us!
Richard W.
Crockett
The USA is the most prosperous
country in the world, but for whom?
The claim is an expression that we frequently echo, and it is the way we
like to think of ourselves. But is it true, or is the conventional wisdom out
of date. And if so, what will it
take to fix it?
It used to be accepted as true,
that if a government engaged in deficit spending, it would provide an economic
stimulus because it would flood the economy with cash. The dollar would Òturn
overÓ at least six times. Even the Chamber of Commerce preached this
doctrine. This Òturn overÓ was
known as the multiplier affect and sometimes the Òdomestic multiplierÓ affect.
But the presidentÕs economic policy has put the lie to that thought. The administration of President Bush
has managed to create record deficits by dumping dollars overseas through
foreign adventure and so called ÒfreeÓ trade. No domestic multiplier here. President Bush has become something of a Keynesian, a
follower of John Maynard Keynes, a British economist of the first half of the
twentieth century. He readily
signs on to the benefit of deficit spending, which Keynes advocated for
depressed economies, but the President approaches it from a supply-side
perspective. Trickle down, if you
will. Well, it doesnÕt seem to
trickle.
Not all Republicans agree with
President BushÕs strategy, but some of them are even worse. John McCain agrees with Bush that we
need to reduce corporate taxes but thinks that we need to curb governmental
spending as we approach a deepening recession. He is talking about continuing expenditures on our overseas
belligerency, but cutting domestic spending. That sounds very much like what
Herbert Hoover thought was needed to correct the crash of 1929, except that he
was less belligerent than Bush and McCain. Of course it failed miserably and elected Franklin D.
Roosevelt to the Presidency. Rudy
Giuliani advocates not replacing Òone half of the federal employees coming up
for retirement.Ó What an economic
stimulus that would be! Do you
think it would really help out? It
might make us feel better, but I doubt that it would help the economy. These two gentlemen have confused
fixing the government with fixing the economy, and it is not likely that it
will do either.
Another approach, which confuses
fixing the government with fixing the economy, is that of Mike Huckabee and Ron
Paul. Neither of them likes the
IRS, so they have a lot of company in this view. Huckabee advocates a Òfair tax,Ó which translates into a 23%
consumption tax (think sales tax), and in return the plan would abolish the
IRS. Hurrah! But think about this. The next time you buy a new car with a
twenty five thousand dollar window sticker, you would need to pony up $5750,
not counting the state sales tax, in federal sales tax for your
self-indulgence. How is that for an economic stimulus? The other well-known
problem of the sales tax is that it discriminates against people who have no discretionary
income. If a couple uses all
of their income for food, housing, clothing, and fuel, and many people are in
this predicament, when they purchase necessities of life, they are taxed most
severely and on every penny of it.
No tax refund here, either.
But if you have an income of one million dollars per year, much of it
goes untaxed because you either salt it away or invest it in some kind of
investment vehicle, which according to the Huckabee plan would not be
taxed. Sounds a little like a
reverse Robin Hood scheme of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich!
If there is a need to lift the
burden of taxes from the American people, we do need to consider
alternatives. One such source of
revenue is a tax on imports, and in the case of so-called American companies
who have closed plants and shipped jobs overseas, it should be an especially
punitive tax. Let them pay for
their unfaithfulness. Oh, I grant
that the companies would transfer this to consumers in the price of their
goods, but that is the point after all—to make these products less
competitive with domestically manufactured American products in order to create
American jobs. The price advantage gained against foreign imports could aid in
the return of jobs and manufacturing to this country. The Japanese car companies already have built plants in this
country, so it can be done. If we
faced a temporary inflation in the price of goods, it would at least support
the American economy rather that that of China, India and Bangladesh.
Huckabee is correct about one
thing, and this is where he parts company from his Republican brethren. He
recognizes the value of public works and public education investment for the
country for its long-term benefit to the economy. In my opinion, this is a correct view because during the
construction phase of public works, it is money paid to local people for local
wages, in turn spent in this country, and this kind of expenditure has a
domestic multiplier.
Further this position recognizes an economic stimulus cannot consist of
a one-time shot in the economic arm, hoping for a permanent fix, but which
quickly returns to a staggering economic insobriety.
A point shared by all of the
Republican candidates is in their belief in the popular myth, that government
is always inherently bad, and we need to dismantle if not abolish it. OK, it is time for a reality
check. What has the lack of
government got for us lately? A
powerful case can be made that we needed a strong, competent government to
respond to the Katrina disaster and to respond to the unchecked invasion of
immigrants across our southern border.
The country needs a competent Federal Emergency Management
Administration, which we did not have with the Katrina disaster, and a substantial
border patrol, which we have not had for several years. These are government jobs with decent
retirements. You will never get
this from a set of interests, which hates the government and is dedicated to
the proposition favoring its reduction or elimination. Instead, what is needed is leadership
that is respectful of the institutions of government and dedicated to the
proposition that it can be made to work.
This will mean that we need to change the interests, which hold sway
over the government.
Does America want a continuation of
an economy being run by overpriced corporate executives where business failure
produces Ògolden parachutesÓ in severance packages upon their being fired and
Washington lobbyists bribing our elected officials with campaign contributions,
or would you rather have an economy that serves the interests of ordinary
people? Further Enron-ization of the economy is undesirable. Republican economics is economics by
and for the rich and corporate interests, and dedicated to the proposition that
opportunity for the small entrepreneur, the middle class and the ordinary
worker is to be systematically abolished in the name of free enterprise, but
understood by the abolishers as capitalism and as being in the interest of
profit. But if profit is a moral
Ògood,Ó then how about profiting the ordinary people and workers for their
work?
How long do we want to worship at
the shrine of corporatism, in the name of free enterprise? Corporate capitalism is not the same
thing as free enterprise—it can become what Benito Mussolini called a
corporate state, a sort of benign fascism, not killing people, but merely
stealing from them and not merely stealing money, but also stealing political
power and ultimately democracy.
1/31/08